When We Ask What Ought To Be

The [classical] Liberal, Of Course, Does Not Deny That There Are Some Superior People -- He Is Not An Egalitarian -- But He Denies That Anyone Has Authority To Decide Who These Superior People Are.

Without The Rich - Without Those Who Accumulated Capital - Those Poor Who Could Exist At All Would Be Very Much Poorer Indeed, Scratching A Livelihood From Marginal Lands On Which Every Drought Would Kill Most Of The Children They Would Be Trying To Raise.

If We Wish To Preserve A Free Society, It Is Essential That We Recognize That The Desirability Of A Particular Object Is Not Sufficient Justification For The Use Of Coercion.

To Undertake The Direction Of The Economic Life Of People With Widely Divergent Ideals And Values Is To Assume Responsibilities Which Commit One To The Use Of Force; It Is To Assume A Position Where The Best Intentions Cannot Prevent One From Being Forced To Act In A Way Which To Some Of Those Affected Must Appear Highly Immoral. This Is True Even If We Assume The Dominant Power To Be As Idealistic And Unselfish As We Can Possibly Conceive. But How Small Is The Likelihood That It Will Be Unselfish, And How Great Are The Temptations!

There Exists No Third Principle For The Organisation Of The Economics Process Which Can Be Rationally Chosen To Achieve Any Desirable Ends, In Addition To Either A Functioning Market In Which Nobody Can Conclusively Determine How Well-off Particular Groups Or Individuals Will Be, Or A Central Direction Where A Group Organised For Power Determines It.